Jimmy Wales wrote:
I share your concerns, but did want to add that the power is also legitimate for sysops to use in cases of 'pure vandalism'.
Yes, I'm surprised that I quoted your post saying just this, back when the power for all admins to ban named users began, less than a week ago; yet nobody seemed to remember it.
If Erik, was wrong, then it was because RK's actions weren't vandalism (in the pure sense of the term, a sense ironically ignored by RK himself). A few people addressed this, but more (it seemed) accused Erik of overstepping his bounds merely because RK's ban wasn't discussed. That was never a precondition in the case of pure vandalism.
In fact, both Erik and Axel did the right things, at the times that they did them, in my personal opinion. Erik performed an emergency block for bona fide vandalism, but reported it to the mailing list since RK was a longtime user and the vandalism in question was unusual behavrour for him; then Axel unblocked RK when the emergency was past. One may argue /whether/ they interpreted the emergency correctly, but my personal opinion is that they both did well.
As for whether we should have a permanent ban on RK, I would suggest that we only discuss this if he returns. There is little to gain from inflaming passions now, and I know that people are keeping track of what he did, so it won't be lost and forgotten when he comes back.
-- Toby